Do you think the U.S. should institute a civics exam to be able to vote?

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

No.

Oh.. yes

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Al'Kimiya
IQ tests for voters... weighted votes according to some IQ scale. (Not everyone wants to study civics.)

A lot of people would fail ON PURPOSE, if you deny them
the right to vote, you deny them representation. (they
have no power over who, or what the rep does)

Therefore they wouldn't have to pay any taxes unless
you also throw out "No Taxation without Representation". A lot of disenchanted votes who don't
vote now (30% -40%???) would show up to fail the test
and be untaxable for the next 4 years. ;D

[Ben Kenobi]

Consider this. Most of Apolyton will not be affected by the imported civics standard. Therefore, this franchise limitation increases the power of most Apolytoners, at the expense of those outside.

Assuming people are naturally inclined to increase their own power at the expense of others, it stands to reason, that the numbers will be biased in support of a franchise restriction.

The less educated vote based more upon emotion and spur-of-the-moment swaying of opinion, and often times vote without being informed. Does anyone recall what happened in 1793 or 1852?

Trip:
Look at the restrictions on franchise before universal suffrage, before those revolutions you complain about. Would you have been able to vote?

Secondly, once you start restricting franchise, what will stop those in power from implementing a similar property limitation? Or even one for age? Would you like to wait until you are 30 in order to vote?

[Lincoln]

There is no such thing as "universal suffrage." You must be of a certain age and you must not be a convicted felon (in some states) and there are often certain residency requirements. You must also be mentally competent. Although the Democrats have tried to wheel people in vegetative states into the polling place to "help" them to vote, this practice is clearly illegal.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, both sides have done some pretty illegal stuff for the sake of votes. (And no I'm not referring to 2000).


Anyway, the thing about a civics exam for voting is that its not disenfranchisement for a whole group of people, or at the very least, not permanent disenfranchisement. It's like acquiring a license. If you fail the first time, study up, and try again. It's not a one-shot deal.

The only thing is that the test must be written and must be uniform for all people in order to prevent the Supreme Court from scrapping it. The only way it can be made unconstitutional is if the test can be shown that it can be used to discriminate against a certain portion of the elligible voters. In previous court cases, the main objection of the Court in such instances was that the tests were administered orally by testing officials who could make the tests so convoluted that even blacks with Phd.s were failing these tests. The Court did not have an objection to the idea of a competency test as a concept however, only with the method in which it was implemented.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Doesn't matter, Sloww.

Citizens have the right to vote, period.

Based on what, exactly?
Paying taxes? Just existence? Of course children don't have the right to vote at the moment. So adulthood is a necessary condition. And what defines that? Just age? Or should it be responsibility too? After all, prisoners aren't entitled to vote in the US. Or are there other necessary conditions? etc. etc.

Your posts suggested that questioning assumptions such as these is an activity that you would discourage. But how would anyone really derive their own meaningful opinions (as opposed to being merely an agent for the opinions of others) if they didn't start by examining the most basic of assumptions.

Incidentally, I have thought about this issue at length and on first glance it appears to be a useful way of improving the quality of decisions made under a (semi) democratic system such as in the US. But it is always important to consider how easy such a change to the current system would be to exploit and abuse, and how power could be transferred to other individuals who aren't themselves elected, monitored, who could easily be corrupted (in this case I am thinking of those marking the papers and awarding pass / fail, or those devising the tests, or programming the computers that administered the tests, etc. etc.). Generally a useful rule of thumb is that the more complex a system is, the more loopholes exist to be exploited. Therefore I would resist restricting the franchise.

To answer another later post, in my opinion mandatory voting such as happens in Australia only serves to muddy the waters of well intentioned voters as those who don't care and wouldn't otherwise attend choose parties randomly or based on anarchic whim.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by srholmes


Based on what, exactly? ...

Based on the fact that it is against every principle and ideal this country supposedly stands for.

I know, I gots some crazy-ass ideas.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Although the Democrats have tried to wheel people in vegetative states into the polling place to "help" them to vote, this practice is clearly illegal.

Don't act like Democrats are the only ones who try and break the law. Republican law-breaking is just as bad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

thats just assinine bull**** sterotypical nonsense

That's the point.

Hence his point that they're voting against their interests.

Yeah, only if their interests are what HE defines their interests to be .

The hell it is.

Damn straight it is! They are just as bad. Just because one is more accepted, doesn't mean I have to believe that that racial slur is 'better'.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Based on the fact that it is against every principle and ideal this country supposedly stands for.

I know, I gots some crazy-ass ideas.

From what you have said so far, I can't tell what ideas you do actually have. If you were to state the principles and ideals that you are referring to and how they apply to this discussion, I think your posts would be more constructive. Blind assertions invoking unspecified principles amount to nothing (well..., spam, I suppose).

Anyway, assuming that you read the rest of my post, you will have realised that I wasn't agreeing with the introduction of exams. I was concerned that your position was dogmatic rather than a result of careful consideration.

This comment of yours from your first post in this topic

Originally posted by Guynemer
Christ, you people scare me.

suggested to me that you would rather no-one questioned such things as human rights, and I am fairly sure that you would rather not hold a position that could be contrary to another so-called basic right, that of freedom of speech.

Regards

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The hell it is.

Damn straight it is! They are just as bad. Just because one is more accepted, doesn't mean I have to believe that that racial slur is 'better'.

It's not always a racial slur. It also means Southern country white folks, in a non-derrogatory fashion. It can also mean red-neck, in the Jeff Foxworthy tradition, and it can also mean white trash, which is certainly hateful, but context is everything.

There are few insults which carry the same weight as n****r. C*nt is one. These are words that mean to strip the humanity of a person. Even as an insult, cracker doesn't come close to the level of hatred contained in the other two. Calling a Jew "soap" would be akin to those words.

[Nubclear]

As che said, the minute anyone does this is the minute he gains a lot of political allies.

Meaning we need to do it. Now.

[chequita guevara]

[Dom Pedro II]

Good lord! I've never heard the "soap" comment before.

But che, I went to a school where the whites were becoming fewer and fewer in number each year and where being replaced by a much more vocal, much more aggressive group of hispanics. They treat us like dirt, and I used to be called "cracker" and "whiteboy" all the time, and I'll tell you, it was not something I looked upon lightly. But it may not be quite as bad as "******".

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not always a racial slur. It also means Southern country white folks, in a non-derrogatory fashion. It can also mean red-neck, in the Jeff Foxworthy tradition, and it can also mean white trash, which is certainly hateful, but context is everything.

You mean how ****** isn't always a racial slur when used in rap music in a non-derrogatory fashion?

Dom: exactly. It isn't unheard of for the word 'cracker' to be extremely derogatory, and I have heard it used as such.